Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flashbacks (comics) (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flashbacks (comics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. This article is based on one specific issue of Amazing Spider-Man. It is largely plot summary with little real-world information besides the 'inspiration' for the story. There is no evidence to support notability more than any other monthly comic.

I nominated this for deletion a year ago, and it reached No Consensus. The two keep votes asserted it's notability by A.) linking to a comicbook website puff piece [1] and B.) "Nothing wrong with plot summaries, that's how every book article is anyway. The story was notable enough to be reprinted in a hardcover book, along with other notable tales. The comic and the hardcover reprint are reviewed by third party media sources, such as IGN"--I should point out that the latter user's criteria could apply to any comic nowadays.

I decided to give the article a year to see if the article would improve before nominating again, and it hasn't. There is still nothing here that indicates why this issue is deserving of it's own article. Sandor Clegane (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources for this issue/storyline of Amazing Spider-Man, and it therefore fails WP:N. HOWEVER - I was unable to locate the sources referred to in the previous AfD other than the IGN review, but if they do exist they would be sufficient to pass WP:N. The fact that similar sources would entitle many comic storylines (or single issues) to Wikipedia articles is not a barrier; it may simply be the case that every comic storyline or single issue deserves a Wikipedia page. WP:N is not a terribly discriminating policy. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.